“…Moreover, the BEM has higher accuracy in calculating the fracture aperture and stresses than has the FEM and is applicable for predicting fracture propagation with complex topologies. These clear advantages have made the BEM popular in modeling fracture growth in 2‐D (Cheng et al, 2020; Hou et al, 2016; Olson, 2004), planar 3‐D (Tang et al, 2016; Zhang et al, 2017), nonplanar 2.5‐D (Kresse et al, 2013; Weng et al, 2011), and nonplanar 3‐D geometries (Castonguay et al, 2013; Cherny et al, 2016; Kumar & Ghassemi, 2018; Shen & Shi, 2019; Tang et al, 2019; Thomas et al, 2020b). In most of the extant literature, fluid exchange between the matrix and the fracture, and fluid flow in the matrix, is either simplified or neglected via assuming an impermeable matrix or employing the 1‐D leak‐off model suggested by Carter (1957).…”